Why so much focus on Katanas?

Watchful said:
AND your point of view is just as valid as anything we've heard. The only difference is, I can *cite* your post! :D
Click to expand...

It's gone from "post" to "reference". This is the stuff wikipedia articles are made of! :cool:

chuckinohio: we hold the superiority of the smatchet to be self-evident. The debate seems mostly focused on lesser blades used by mere mortal men. :D
 
Bors said:
There was also a Calvary charge with sabers against Hitlers blitzkrieg..... Incredible effort but a bit one sided.
Click to expand...
that was in poland and it was beyond one sided, sadly enough. alot of my grandmother's family died in Poland thanks to that man. But you have to give them credit for their bravery.
 
benjammin said:
I always considered a good quality sabre to be an effective melee tool. Especially the more modern designs. Given that armor is fairly non-existent these days, I would think a single handed implement with a suitable guard would be preferable in most cases.

When was the last time a sword of any type was used at least marginally in battle (major conflict)? I'm thinking it's been at least 100 years now.
Click to expand...

no way the Applegate Fairbairn Smatchet is the only way to go
 
benjammin said:
That's kinda where I drew my conclusions as well. One good blow from the Samurai and the fight would pretty much end, but he might not be able to get inside enough to deliver it without succumbing to the extended reach of the fencing style.
Click to expand...

Mushashi defeated rapier swordsmen from Europe in duels by using two short swords. He said that was the best way to combat a really long sword (such as a rapier or extra-long katana). The only time Mushashi almost lost was when he dueled somebody with just a plain staff.

In Asian sword duels, the battle is usually over within a second. It's just a lightning quick draw and cut, and one of the duelists would fall. European style go back and forth a lot.

Katanas really were better cutters than European swords. They use better steels. European swords are better at stabbing.
 
Last edited:
cotdt said:
Mushashi defeated rapier swordsmen from Europe in duels by using two short swords. He said that was the best way to combat a really long sword (such as a rapier or extra-long katana). The only time Mushashi almost lost was when he dueled somebody with just a plain staff.

In Asian sword duels, the battle is usually over within a second. It's just a lightning quick draw and cut, and one of the duelists would fall. European style go back and forth a lot.

Katanas really were better cutters than European swords. They use better steels. European swords are better at stabbing.
Click to expand...

Who wants to take this one?
 
cotdt said:
Mushashi defeated rapier swordsmen from Europe in duels by using two short swords. He said that was the best way to combat a really long sword (such as a rapier or extra-long katana). The only time Mushashi almost lost was when he dueled somebody with just a plain staff.

In Asian sword duels, the battle is usually over within a second. It's just a lightning quick draw and cut, and one of the duelists would fall. European style go back and forth a lot.

Katanas really were better cutters than European swords. They use better steels. European swords are better at stabbing.
Click to expand...

The reactions thus far should hint to you that there is some disagreement with your analysis. I would suggest that it might be a good idea to do some more reading on a variety of topics including Musashi, Japanese sword duels, the use of the sword in medieval Europe and metallurgy.
 
thanks Bors,my 1st time in this area.great pics did it come like that or has it been sharpened? saw a 13th cent. short sword last yr.[japanese] gave new meaning to term "mirror polish"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top